Another shot at Citizens United - tilting at windmills?

If one accepts that corporations and other non-governmental organizations have the legal status of persons, the Citizens United ruling was appropriate. If one does not, amending the constitution is the only current, legal remedy. To amend the constitution, two thirds of both houses of the Congress must agree to the amendment, and then three quarters of the states must ratify it. That is a rather high hurdle to cross.

I should amend my comment. I have not read the ruling. I don't consider a biased web site article as an accurate statement of the content of the ruling. The language of the article is obviously biased and tendentious. So, i will note that if the ruling completely sweeps away the concept of coporations and other organizations as persons, it would be a direct challenge to the basis of the Citizens United ruling. If that were the case, the Court would have to overrule the lower federal court ruling, or see not just that case, but the basis for that case entirely set aside. In such a case, the Court is not likely to ignore the lower court ruling. However, even if it let the lower court ruling stand, it would apply only narrowly, i.e., in cases involving government contractors. Lower courts can fulminate, but their rulings are not taken as statements of general judicial and juridical principles.

I didn't read it either - for the same reason and I suffixed the post 'tilting at windmills' for the very reasons you outline.

USA seems to be stuck with it.

Stuck with it for the time being. If the composition of the court changes by only one member, a "liberal" majority could revisit the issue and throw out Citizens United, as well as the principle of corporations and organizations having the civil rights of persons, and everyone would be back to square one.